Connect with us

Awareness

Diseases With Unknown Etiology Trace Back To Mass Vaccination Against Influenza in 1976

Published

on

By James Lyons-Weiler via The World Mercury Project 

Crohn’s. Lupus. Autism. ADHD. Food allergies. Celiac disease. Sjögren’s syndrome. Polymyalgia rheumatica. Multiple sclerosis. Anklyosing spondylitis. Type 1 diabetes. Vasculitis. Peripheral neuropathy. The list goes on, and on, and on. We are being increasingly diagnosed with these conditions and diseases of unknown origin, and science has very little to say – why would autoimmune diseases and mysterious diseases of inflammation be so prevalent? When did this increase start?

advertisement - learn more

As an observer and participant in modern biomedical research, and a lover of deep history, I tend to focus not on the immediate or last few years, but look for trends of accumulating risk over longer periods of time. Seeking an answer to the question of “when”, I used Pubmed to estimate, per yer, the number of studies and papers discussing diseases and conditions of unknown origin. I search for the term “unknown causes”, and also for the term “journal” to get some idea of the percentage of studies, papers and editorials discussing disease of unknown causes. I had no idea what to expect.

Looking at a trend of topics per year, one has to correct for some estimate of the total number of articles published, because a mere count would, in part, reflect the overall trend in the explosion of total articles published. I chose as my control term the word “journal”, because many titles of publications include that term (e.g., “Journal of Nephrology). Here is the control result, which is not surprising, and completely expected:

Again, this merely reflects the trend in the increase in publications in Pubmed, and so using it would provide a relative control for that trend.

Next I searched for “Unknown Causes”, and calculated the number of articles citing unknown causes per 10,000 articles (again, relative denominator term).

advertisement - learn more

What I found is shocking. Here is a graph of the number of articles per 10,000 discussing “unknown causes” (Y = #articles mentioning “unknown causes” / #articles mentioning “journal”, as in the title of journals).

Because the studies in Pubmed include all sorts of journals studying all sorts of things, the actual number is not as important as the trend. The signature is undeniable. Something changed dramatically in 1976. To the skeptic: the increase is greater if one does not correct for total publications.

What changed was national mass vaccination against influenza.

The follow section is excerpted from “Reflections on the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccination Program” by David Sencer and J. Donald Millar. [Link]

Swine Flu at Fort Dix

On February 3, 1976, the New Jersey State Health Department sent the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta isolates of virus from recruits at Fort Dix, New Jersey, who had influenza-like illnesses. Most of the isolates were identified as A/Victoria/75 (H3N2), the contemporary epidemic strain. Two of the isolates, however, were not typeable in that laboratory. On February 10, additional isolates were sent and identified in CDC laboratories as A/New Jersey/76 (Hsw1N1), similar to the virus of the 1918 pandemic and better known as “swine flu.”

A meeting of representatives of the military, the National Institute of Health, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the State of New Jersey Department of Health was quickly convened on Saturday, February 14, 1976. Plans of action included heightened surveillance in and around Fort Dix, investigation of the ill recruits to determine if contact with pigs had occurred, and serologic testing of recruits to determine if spread had occurred at Fort Dix.

Surveillance activities at Fort Dix gave no indication that recruits had contact with pigs. Surveillance in the surrounding communities found influenza caused by the current strain of influenza, A/Victoria, but no additional cases of swine flu. Serologic testing at Fort Dix indicated that person-to-person transmission had occurred in >200 recruits (4).

In 1974 and 1975, 2 instances of humans infected with swine influenza viruses had been documented in the United States. Both persons involved had close contact with pigs, and no evidence for spread of the virus beyond family members with pig contact could be found (5).

The National Influenza Immunization Program

On March 10, 1976, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Public Health Service (ACIP) reviewed the findings. The committee concluded that with a new strain (the H1N1 New Jersey strain) that could be transmitted from person to person, a pandemic was a possibility. Specifically, the following facts were of concern: 1) persons <50 years of age had no antibodies to this new strain; 2) a current interpandemic strain (A/Victoria) of influenza was widely circulating; 3) this early detection of an outbreak caused by A/New Jersey/76/Hsw1N1 (H1N1) provided an opportunity to produce a vaccine since there was sufficient time between the initial isolates and the advent of an expected influenza season to produce vaccine. In the past when a new pandemic strain had been identified, there had not been enough time to manufacture vaccine on any large scale; 4) influenza vaccines had been used for years with demonstrated safety and efficacy when the currently circulating vaccine strain was incorporated; 5) the military vaccine formulation for years had included H1N1, an indication that production was possible, and no documented adverse effects had been described.

ACIP recommended that an immunization program be launched to prevent the effects of a possible pandemic. One ACIP member summarized the consensus by stating “If we believe in prevention, we have no alternative but to offer and urge the immunization of the population.” One ACIP member expressed the view that the vaccine should be stockpiled, not given.

Making this decision carried an unusual urgency. The pharmaceutical industry had just finished manufacture of the vaccine to be used in the 1976–1977 influenza season. At that time, influenza vaccine was produced in fertilized hen’s eggs from special flocks of hens. Roosters used for fertilizing the hens were still available; if they were slaughtered, as was customary, the industry could not resume production for several months.

On March 13, an action memo was presented to the Secretary of the Department of Health Education and Welfare (DHEW). It outlined the problem and presented 4 alternative courses of action. First was “business as usual,” with the marketplace prevailing and the assumption that a pandemic might not occur. The second was a recommendation that the federal government embark on a major program to immunize a highly susceptible population. As a reason to adopt this plan of action, the memo stated that “the Administration can tolerate unnecessary health expenditures better than unnecessary death and illness if a pandemic should occur.” The third proposed course of action was a minimal response, in which the federal government would contract for sufficient vaccine to provide for traditional federal beneficiaries—military personnel, Native Americans, and Medicare-eligible persons. The fourth alternative was a program that would represent an exclusively federal response without involvement of the states.

The proposal recommended by the director of CDC was the second course, namely, for the federal government to contract with private pharmaceutical companies to produce sufficient vaccine to permit the entire population to be immunized against H1N1. The federal government would make grants to state health departments to organize and conduct immunization programs. The federal government would provide vaccine to state health departments and private medical practices. Since influenza caused by A/Victoria was active worldwide, industry was asked to incorporate the swine flu into an A/Victoria product to be used for populations at high risk.

Before the discussions with the secretary of DHEW had been completed, a member of his staff sent a memo to a health policy advisor in the White House, raising the specter of the 1918 pandemic, which had been specifically underemphasized in the CDC presentation. CDC’s presentation highlighted the pandemic potential, comparing it with the 1968–69 Hong Kong and 1957–58 Asian pandemics. President Gerald Ford’s staff recommended that the president convene a large group of well-known and respected scientists (Albert Sabin and Jonas Salk had to be included) and public representatives to hear the government’s proposal and make recommendations to the president about it. After the meeting, the president had a press conference, highlighted by the unique simultaneous appearance of Salk and Sabin. President Ford announced that he accepted the recommendations that CDC had originally made to the secretary of DHEW. The National Influenza Immunization Program (NIIP) was initiated.

The proposal was presented to 4 committees of the Congress, House and Senate authorization committees and House and Senate appropriation committees. All 4 committees reported out favorable legislation, and an appropriation bill was passed and signed.

The estimated budgeted cost of the program was $137 million. When Congress passed the appropriation, newspapers mischaracterized the cost as “$1.9 billion” because the $137 million was included as part of a $1.9 billion supplemental appropriation for the Department of Labor. In the minds of the public, this misconception prevailed.

Immediately after the congressional hearing, a meeting of all directors of state health departments and medical societies was held at CDC. The program was presented by CDC, and attendees were asked for comments. A representative from the New Jersey state health department opposed the plan; the Wisconsin state medical society opposed any federal involvement. Otherwise, state and local health departments approved the plan.

Within CDC, a unit charged with implementing the program, which reported to the director, was established. This unit, NIIP, had complete authority to draw upon any resources at CDC needed. NIIP was responsible for relations with state and local health departments (including administration of the grant program for state operations, technical advice to the procurement staff for vaccine, and warehousing and distribution of the vaccine to state health departments) and established a proactive system of surveillance for possible adverse effects of the influenza vaccines, the NIIP Surveillance Assessment Center (NIIP-SAC). (This innovative surveillance system would prove to be NIIP’s Trojan horse.) In spite of the obstacles discussed below, NIIP administered a program that immunized 45 million in 10 weeks, which resulted in doubling the level of immunization for persons deemed to be at high risk, rapidly identifying adverse effects, and developing and administering an informed consent form for use in a community-based program.

Obstacles to the Vaccination Plan

The principal obstacle was the lack of vaccines. As test batches were prepared, the largest ever field trials of influenza vaccines ensued. The vaccines appeared efficacious and safe (although in the initial trials, children did not respond immunologically to a single dose of vaccine, and a second trial with a revised schedule was needed) (6). Hopes were heightened for a late summer/early fall kickoff of mass immunization operations.

In January 1976, before the New Jersey outbreak, CDC had proposed legislation that would have compensated persons damaged as a result of immunization when it was licensed by FDA and administered in the manner recommended by ACIP. The rationale given was that immunization protects the community as well as the individual (a societal benefit) and that when a person participating in that societal benefit is damaged, society had a responsibility to that person. The proposal was sent back from a staff member in the Surgeon General’s office with a handwritten note, “This is not a problem.”

Soon, however, NIIP received the first of 2 crippling blows to hopes to immunize “every man, woman, and child.” The first was later in 1976, when instead of boxes of bottled vaccine, the vaccine manufacturers delivered an ultimatum—that the federal government indemnify them against claims of adverse reactions as a requirement for release of the vaccines. The government quickly capitulated to industry’s demand for indemnification. While the manufacturers’ ultimatum reflected the trend of increased litigiousness in American society, its unintended, unmistakable subliminal message blared “There’s something wrong with this vaccine.” This public misperception, warranted or not, ensured that every coincidental health event that occurred in the wake of the swine flu shot would be scrutinized and attributed to the vaccine.

On August 2, 1976, deaths apparently due to an influenzalike illness were reported from Pennsylvania in older men who had attended the convention of the American Legion in Philadelphia. A combined team of CDC and state and local health workers immediately investigated. By the next day, epidemiologic evidence indicated that the disease was not influenza (no secondary cases occurred in the households of the patients). By August 4, laboratory evidence conclusively ruled out influenza. However, this series of events was interpreted by the media and others as an attempt by the government to “stimulate” NIIP.

Shortly after the national campaign began, 3 elderly persons died after receiving the vaccine in the same clinic. Although investigations found no evidence that the vaccine and deaths were causally related, press frenzy was so intense it drew a televised rebuke from Walter Cronkite for sensationalizing coincidental happenings.

Guillain-Barré Syndrome

What NIIP did not and could not survive, however, was the second blow, finding cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) among persons receiving swine flu immunizations. As of 1976, >50 “antecedent events” had been identified in temporal relationship to GBS, events that were considered as possible factors in its cause. The list included viral infections, injections, and “being struck by lightning.” Whether or not any of the antecedents had a causal relationship to GBS was, and remains, unclear. When cases of GBS were identified among recipients of the swine flu vaccines, they were, of course, well covered by the press. Because GBS cases are always present in the population, the necessary public health questions concerning the cases among vaccine recipients were “Is the number of cases of GBS among vaccine recipients higher than would be expected? And if so, are the increased cases the result of increased surveillance or a true increase?” Leading epidemiologists debated these points, but the consensus, based on the intensified surveillance for GBS (and other conditions) in recipients of the vaccines, was that the number of cases of GBS appeared to be an excess.

Had H1N1 influenza been transmitted at that time, the small apparent risk of GBS from immunization would have been eclipsed by the obvious immediate benefit of vaccine-induced protection against swine flu. However, in December 1976, with >40 million persons immunized and no evidence of H1N1 transmission, federal health officials decided that the possibility of an association of GBS with the vaccine, however small, necessitated stopping immunization, at least until the issue could be explored. A moratorium on the use of the influenza vaccines was announced on December 16; it effectively ended NIIP of 1976. Four days later the New York Times published an op-ed article that began by asserting, “Misunderstandings and misconceptions… have marked Government … during the last eight years,” attributing NIIP and its consequences to “political expediency” and “the self interest of government health bureaucracy” (7). These simple and sinister innuendos had traction, as did 2 epithets used in the article to describe the program, “debacle” in the text and “Swine Flu Fiasco” in the title.

On February 7, the new secretary of DHEW, Joseph A. Califano, announced the resumption of immunization of high-risk populations with monovalent A/Victoria vaccine that had been prepared as part of the federal contracts, and he dismissed the director of CDC.

Lessons Learned

NIIP may offer lessons for today’s policymakers, who are faced with a potential pandemic of avian influenza and struggling with decisions about preventing it (Table). Two of these lessons bear further scrutiny here.

Media and Presidential Attention

While all decisions related to NIIP had been reached in public sessions (publishing of the initial virus findings in CDC’s weekly newsletter, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR); New York Times reporter Harold Schmeck’s coverage of the ACIP sessions, the president’s press conference, and 4 congressional hearings), effective communication from scientifically qualified persons was lacking, and the perception prevailed that the program was motivated by politics rather than science. In retrospect (and to some observers at the time), the president’s highly visible convened meeting and subsequent press conference, which included pictures of his being immunized, were mistakes. These instances seemed to underline the suspicion that the program was politically motivated, rather than a public health response to a possible catastrophe.Annex 11 of the draft DHEW pandemic preparedness plan states, “For policy decisions and in communication, making clear what is not known is as important as stating what is known. When assumptions are made, the basis for the assumptions and the uncertainties surrounding them should be communicated” (11). This goal is much better accomplished if the explanations are communicated by those closest to the problem, who can give authoritative scientific information. Scientific information coming from a nonscientific political figure is likely to encourage skepticism, not enthusiasm.

Neither CDC nor the health agencies of the federal government had been in the habit of holding regular press conferences. CDC considered that its appropriate main line of communication was to states and local health departments, believing that they were best placed to communicate with the public. MMWR served both a professional and public audience and accounted for much of CDC’s press coverage. In 1976, no all-news stations existed, only the nightly news. The decision to stop the NIIP on December 16, 1976, was announced by a press release from the office of the assistant secretary for health. The decision to reinstitute the immunization of those at high risk was announced by a press release from the office of the secretary, DHEW. In retrospect, periodic press briefings would have served better than responding to press queries. The public must understand that decisions are based on public health, not politics. To this end, health communication should be by health personnel through a regular schedule of media briefings.

Decision To Begin Immunization

This decision is worthy of serious question and debate. As Walter Dowdle (12) points out in this issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases, the prevailing wisdom was that a pandemic could be expected at any time. Public health officials were concerned that if immunization was delayed until H1N1 was documented to have spread to other groups, the disease would spread faster than any ability to mobilize preventive vaccination efforts. Three cases of swine influenza had recently occurred in persons who had contact with pigs. In 1918, after the initial outbreak of influenza at Fort Riley in April, widespread outbreaks of influenza did not occur until late summer (13).

The Delphi exercise of Schoenbaum in early fall of 1976 (13) was the most serious scientific undertaking to poll scientists to decide whether or not to continue the program. Its main finding was that the cost benefit would be best if immunization were limited to those >25 years of age (and now young children are believed to be a potent source of spread of influenza virus!). Unfortunately, no biblical Joseph was there to rise from prison and interpret the future.

As Dowdle further states (12), risk assessment and risk management are separate functions. But they must come together with policymakers, who must understand both. These discussions should not take place in large groups in the president’s cabinet room but in an environment that can establish an educated understanding of the situation. Once the policy decisions are made, implementation should be left to a single designated agency. Advisory groups should be small but representative. CDC had the lead responsibility for operation of the program. Implementation by committee does not work. Within CDC, a unit was established for program execution, including surveillance, outbreak investigation, vaccine procurement and distribution, assignment of personnel to states, and awarding and monitoring grants to the states. Communications up the chain of command to the policymakers and laterally to other directly involved federal agencies were the responsibility of the CDC director, not the director of NIIP, who was responsible for communications to the states and local health departments, those ultimately implementing operations of the program. This organizational mode functioned well, a tribute to the lack of interagency jealousies.

[End of Excerpt]

This history is fascinating. But the conclusions of those involved in the decision-making about risk is telling: even though they observed Guillain-Barré syndrome in a significant number of individuals, they forged ahead with ACIP telling them it was more important to conduct mass vaccinations.

In 1986, the The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Guillain-Barré Syndrome was added to the table of vaccine injuries for which compensation is awarded in 2017. It took thirty-one years to add GBS to the table, and they knew about the assocation for ten years before the 1986 act.

When assessing risk, there are the knowns, the unknowns, and the unknowns one does even know to look for. The “Reflections” article, on the CDC website, shows that knowledge of risk of autoimmune disorders like Guillain-Barré Syndrome and deaths from vaccination was present from the beginning.

Serious side effects in a minority of patients is rationalized by the benefits of the flu vaccine, and vaccine risk denialism perpetuates the regulation of perception necessary for continuation of the view that the benefits outweigh the risks.

But, at a population level, evidence is mounting that, due to numerous reasons, mass influenza vaccination is self-defeating.

The facts in the scientific literature that must be considered include:

(1) A/H3N2 disease vaccinated individuals were significantly more likely to report myalgias (OR 3.31; 95% CI [1.22, 8.97]) than vaccinated individuals. [Vaccine-associated reduction in symptom severity among patients with influenza]

(2) Vaccination with Thimerosal induces immunological damage. Specifically, Thimerosal inhibits the protein ERAP1, which shortens proteins headed for the cell surface of MHC Class 1 [“Stamogiannos et al., 2016 Screening Identifies Thimerosal as a Selective Inhibitor of Endoplasmic Reticulum Aminopeptidase 1″]

(3) Vaccination against Influenza with thimerosal-containing vaccines is associated with an increase in non-influenza respiratory infections [“Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine“]

(4) Repeated vaccination at a young age substantially increases the risk of influenza in older age, by a factor ranging between 1. 2 (vaccination after 50 years) to 2. 4 (vaccination from birth) [“Repeated influenza vaccination of healthy children and adults: borrow now, pay later?“]

(5) B-cells activated by flu vaccine crowds out B-cells for other viruses [“Why Flu Vaccines So Often Fail, Science Magazine“]

(13) The evidence that heterologous immunity and very limited efficacy makes universal vaccination against the flu will create more disease than it prevents is impressive. [Why do people get the flu after getting the flu shot?]

(8) The rate of aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season is higher than that in people with no vaccination in those two seasons. [“Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community“]

(10) Repeated flu shots may blunt effectiveness [“Repeated flu shots may blunt effectiveness“]

These observations also exist at the population level. CDC annually reports both the influenza vaccine uptake and estimates of the adjusted vaccine efficacy (AVE). If the AVE of two years following the efficacy of a given year is regressed, the annual loss in efficacy in the flu vaccine due to the flu vaccine is 1.167 units of AVE per percentage increase in flu vaccine uptake:

These result are from CDC’s own data, and reflect population effects. They are robust to the low coverage value ‘outlier’, data provided here for the interested skeptic. seasonal-flu-vaccine-effectiveness .

Repeated calls for addressing these conundrums fall on deaf ears. The explosion of diseases of mysterious origin – the cost of morbidity and mortality – means there is no excuse for sloppy, lazy vaccinology. The changes needed are known, and there is no excuse. Unsafe epitopes that match human proteins must be removed. Thimerosal must be removed. Aluminum exposure must be minimized.

We desperately need a new generation of technologies for artificial immunization, and those products should (a) not be contracted via the CDC at all, (b) subjected to the same rigorous standards of evidence of safety required of drugs with long-term safety outcomes (total health outcome awareness), (c) vaccine risk denialism must be stopped immediately.

The 1976 risk policy assumptions are summarized by Sencer and Millar:

Decision-making” Risks

When lives are at stake, it is better to err on the side of overreaction than underreaction. Because of the unpredictability of influenza, responsible public health leaders must be willing to take risks on behalf of the public. This requires personal courage and a reasonable level of understanding by the politicians to whom these public health leaders are accountable. All policy decisions entail risks and benefits: risks or benefits to the decision maker; risks or benefits to those affected by the decision. In 1976, the federal government wisely opted to put protection of the public first.” (emphasis added)

At this point, in 2018, one must ask: when will protection from vaccine-induced immunological and neurological damage become a factor in the risk equations, or better yet, a priority? When will it be seen as more important than the management of the perception of risk?

Additional Considerations

A minority of ‘flu’ cases involve influenza [“Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease“] Very few “flu deaths” involve influenza virus infection [“Are US flu death figures more PR than science?”]

Many of the deaths attributed to infuenza may be due to “sudden deterioration” observed due to Tamiflu treatment. [“Oseltamivir and early deterioration leading to death: a proportional mortality study for 2009A/H1N1 influenza“]

The arguments for uniform healthcare worker influenza vaccination are not supported by existing literature. [What, in Fact, Is the Evidence That Vaccinating Healthcare Workers against Seasonal Influenza Protects Their Patients? A Critical Review]

The number needed to treat to prevent one infection is 71, and vaccination has no net positive effect on working days or hospitalization. [“Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults“].

ACIP selectively picks results of science to support influenza vaccine and ignores results that question efficacy and safety. [Guidelines in disrepute: a case study of influenza vaccination of healthcare workers ]

Children Who Get Flu Vaccine Have Three Times Risk Of Hospitalization For Flu, Study Suggests [LINK1] [LINK2]

Antivirals if used early can reduce pneumonia and bronchitis, but appear to come with a risk of psychiatric episodes. [Narayana Manjunatha, N et al. 2011.  The neuropsychiatric aspects of influenza/swine flu: A selective review Ind Psychiatry J. 20(2): 83–90.]

 Studies are needed to determine if “flu infection” after influenza vaccination followed by Tamiflu treatment is a recipe for mortality. [Pediatric advisory committee briefing for Tamiflu – Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. ] FDA Posts Tamiflu Warning.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Scientist Replies To The Medical Industry’s False Claims About Aluminum Safety

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Aluminum.org is a pro-aluminum industry website. It even lists an Aluminum Caucus. This is a look into their list of “myths” about the safety of aluminum product they promote to see if their claims pass the proof-by-Pubmed test.

  • Reflect On:

    With all of the science clearly contradicting the medical and aluminum industry's claims of safety, how are they still able to approve the use of aluminum in our medications? It makes to sense, especially from a scientific standpoint.

By: James Lyons-Weiler, CEO/Director, The Institute for Pure and Applied KnowledgeCHD Contributing Writer

“Myth” #1: Exposure to aluminum causes Alzheimer’s Disease

Aluminum.org Claim: “Aluminum is not linked to Alzheimer’s disease, the cause (or causes) of which is unknown. In the words of the Alzheimer’s Association, ‘The research community is generally convinced that aluminum is not a key risk factor in developing Alzheimer’s disease.’

The World Health Organization has also concluded that “there is no evidence to support a primary causative role of aluminum in Alzheimer’s disease.’”

JLW’S ANALYSIS: It is highly odd to see the Alzheimer’s Association and the World Health Organization describing a type of consensus that there is no role for aluminum as a primary cause in Alzheimer’s disease for one simple fact: amyloid, the gunk that gums up the brain in Alzheimer’s dementia, is part aluminum. In fact, this has been known since 1985 [1].

…when the substance IS the condition, no level of epidemiological evidence will overrule the direct finding of the substance at the site of the disease manifestation.

So why and how could these organizations claim that aluminum does not play a primary causal role? The most likely explanation is the use of incorrect science and/or focus on the incorrect level of evidence. When a substance is co-localized to the site of condition, that’s pretty strong evidence that is play some role in the process – even if it is an inhibitory role, it’s still a role. But when the substance IS the condition, no level of epidemiological evidence will overrule the direct finding of the substance at the site of the disease manifestation.

advertisement - learn more

Examples include asbestos and various lung conditions. Asbestos fibres are extremely small; the most dangerous are <2 microns. When you breathe asbestos fibre in, the fibres remain in lung tissue for a long time and cause scarring and inflammation, leading to pleural plaques, widespread pleural thickening, pleural effusion, asbestosis, lung cancer, or mesothelioma [2].

Another example is the CDC’s use of the finding of the Zika virus in one brain of an aborted fetus with microcephaly to conclude that the Zika virus induces microcephaly. Dr. Anthony Fauci of US NIAID proclaimed that the finding was the “strongest evidence yet” that Zika was the cause of microcephaly in Brazil in 2015. However, oddly, although the incidence of Zika infection in Brazil increased with the mosquito season in 2016, there was no corresponding uptick in microcephaly– and no study was conducted to seek a role of the use of whole-cell pertussis vaccination in the slums of Northeast Brazil where the microcephaly outbreak peaked. So, evidence at multiple levels should be considered in the assessment of causality.

Amyloid is, of course, universally recognized as key deposit in the brain of people with Alzheimer’s disease. But what many people do not realize is that amyloid is produced in the bones, and as people age, their bone density reduces, and amyloid can be released. When it deposits in the brain, the compound (which is part aluminum), can lead to cerebral amyloid angiopathy, a condition in which blood vessels in the brain become coated and clogged with amyloid. This can lead to strokes and contributes to age-related dementia. So healthy bones are very important to reduce the amount of amyloid, and therefore aluminum, in the brain. Medium weight training is required as people age to keep bones strong.

The symptoms of severe acute aluminum exposure include cell death, meningitis, and dementia.

When aluminum itself enters the brain (and there is zero doubt that occurs [3-5]), it can have numerous effects. One, of course, is to serve as a building block by combining with amyloid precursor protein. Aluminum can also have nefarious influences on a brain cell’s ability to fold proteins properly, lead to disease condition in which cellular necrosis (seepage of oddly, improperly shaped proteins) can occur, wreaking havoc with intercellular signaling. The inflammasome can be activated, leading to the recruitment of intrinsic immunity cellular responses (including microglial activation[6]). It causes the release of cytokines, especially IL-6, which make the brain’s innate immune cells act as if nearby cells are under viral attack. The symptoms of severe acute aluminum exposure include cell death, meningitis, and dementia. Vaccine Papers has a good resource for studies on the effects of various forms of aluminum [7].

“Myth” #2: Aluminum present as an active ingredient in some antiperspirants leads to breast cancer.

Aluminum.org Claim: “Aluminum is not, nor has it ever been, classified as a carcinogen. Further, there is no convincing scientific evidence that aluminum-based antiperspirant use contributes to the development of breast cancer. Less than 0.02% of aluminum in contact with skin is taken up by the body, the rest being excreted in a very short time.”

“The American Cancer Society states “There are no strong epidemiologic studies in the medical literature that link breast cancer risk and antiperspirant use, and very little scientific evidence to support this claim. In fact, a carefully designed epidemiologic study of this issue published in 2002 compared 813 women with breast cancer and 793 women without the disease. The researchers found no link between breast cancer risk and antiperspirant use, deodorant use, or underarm shaving.’”

JLW ANALYSIS: study by Linhart et al. (2017)[8] found that the use of aluminum-containing deodorant increased both aluminum content in breast tissue and breast cancer risk, confirming studies from as early as 2003 (McGrath 2003) [9]. A growing number of studies show that mammary epithelial cells cultured accumulate mutations when exposed to aluminum [10]. While the epidemiological literature is divided, it is surprising to see Aluminum.org provide only the single study that found no link, while two other studies, including one that pre-dated the study they did cite, do report increased tissue burden and increased risk of breast cancer.

Aluminum is becoming so ubiquitous that single source safety considerations are now obsolete.

“Myth” #3: Consuming aluminum in antacid pills can cause health problems.

Aluminum.org Claim: “Aluminum is poorly absorbed by the body. This means that most (at least 99.9%) of aluminum ingested from food and water merely passes through the digestive tract and out of the body. Several studies have found no adverse effects for those who have ingested even large quantities of aluminum-containing antacids from antacids…

Additional reassurance regarding aluminum’s safety can be derived from the fact that frequent users of oral antacids may consume very high quantities of aluminum (e.g. up to 1000 mg/day), several orders of magnitude higher than the intake from ordinary food and water intake, yet no adverse health effects have been demonstrated…

The Center for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry notes, ‘An extremely small amount of the aluminum found in antacids [is] absorbed [through ingestion].’ And further, ‘The FDA has determined that aluminum used as food additives and medicinals such as antacids are generally safe.’”

JLW Analysis: Now this is interesting, because Paul Offit of Children’s Hospital says that we get “far more” aluminum from diet than from vaccines. But we will come back that.

Aluminum.org is correct to say we absorb a tiny fraction of the aluminum we ingest. However, any dietary aluminum from one source has a cumulative effect from dietary aluminum from any other source. So, for example, cooking rhubarb in aluminum foil will lead to very high levels of ingested aluminum. Following that up with an antacid that contains aluminum adds to the total. Taking pills that contain aluminum in a carrier base also increases the dose. And then taking aluminum-containing vaccines at the same time increases the total aluminum compound dose even further. Aluminum is becoming so ubiquitous that single source safety considerations are now obsolete.

For a given day, a one-time exposure is probably not a concern for 130-lb woman or 1 180 lb-man. But in children, it’s a different story. Why? Body weight determines the toxicity of a dose. And while ATSDR looked at the effects of dietary aluminum, it is incorrect to say that studies found no ill effects. One key study (Golub et al., 1989) [11] in fact did report food intake problems (cyclic food intake, indicative of exposure to a toxin, or poison), in spite of being represented by the FDA as not finding any adverse reactions. Numerous other studies also showed that dietary forms of aluminum have adverse events (see accumulated list [12]).

The primary concern over aluminum toxicity are its whole-body accumulation, and its synergistic effect on the toxicity of other toxic chemicals in our environment – such as fluoride. A study by Kaur et al. in 2009 [13] found alterations in the neurotransmitters (e.g., dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin) due to fluoride in rats, and that the changes were more pronounced in animals given fluoride and aluminum together. They reported that histological evidence showed “deprivation of neuronal integrity with higher magnitude in concurrent fluoride and aluminum exposure, as compared to fluoride alone” and they concluded that aluminum appears to enhance the neurotoxic hazards caused by fluoride.

“Myth” #4: It is dangerous to cook with aluminum pots and pans.

Aluminum.org Claim: “The Food and Drug Administration studied this issue in the early 1980s and reported no safety concerns from using aluminum cookware. More recently, the Center for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry reported that ‘foods cooked in aluminum pots are generally considered to be safe.’

An independent study by America’s Test Kitchen in 2012 found that “In lab tests … tomato sauce … cooked in an aluminum pot for two hours and then stored in the same pot overnight was found to contain only .0024 milligrams of aluminum per cup.” For the sake of comparison, according to the FDA, ‘the daily aluminum intake for man from all dietary sources can range from 10 to 100 mg per day.’ Consumption at this level is considered safe.”

JLW Analysis: The category “GRAS” is an archaic category based on no science, but rather a general assumption of safety applied to food additives based on information available prior to the 1960s (and before). As we know, we are living in an increasingly toxic environment; we do not live on our grandparent’s planet. But even absent concern with low doses of aluminum from pots and pans, any amount is cumulative to aluminum from other exposures. Since there are alternative materials, why take on further risk given that aluminum is becoming so ubiquitous?

Offspring showed growth retardation and somewhat delayed neurobehavioural development, which was consistent with maternal toxicity…

“Myth” #5: The aluminum salts used to clean municipal drinking water pose a danger to human health.

Aluminum.org Claim: “Virtually every municipal water purification system in the world uses aluminum salts to remove impurities and provide safe, healthy and accessible drinking water. The global public health benefits enabled by these systems are numerous and have prevented innumerable water-borne diseases.

Health Canada spent 10 years and millions of dollars studying this issue and concluded: ‘There is no consistent, convincing evidence that aluminum in drinking water causes adverse health effects in humans, and aluminum does not affect the acceptance of drinking water by consumers or interfere with practices for supplying good water.’”

JLW Analysis: Here we have a clearly misleading effort to cherry-pick not just from the scientific literature. The same report cited by Aluminum.org also reported:

An increase in pre-weaning mortality and a delay in weight gain and neuromotor development in surviving pups were reported in the offspring of albino Wistar rats given oral doses (in the diet) of aluminum chloride (equivalent to about 155 and 192 mg Al/kg bw per day) from day 8 of gestation through parturition… Neurotoxicity and weight loss were also reported in mouse dams fed a diet containing aluminum lactate at 500 or 1000 ppm from day 0 of gestation to day 21 postpartum.

Offspring showed growth retardation and somewhat delayed neurobehavioural development, which was consistent with maternal toxicity…

In a study in which pregnant rats were exposed to a 20% solution of Maalox (a stomach antacid) in tap water (approximately 3.2 mg Al/mL) from the second day of gestation, Anderson et al.205 found that offspring of aluminum-exposed dams showed significantly more aggressive responses, although the time spent on each aggressive response was less than in controls. Furthermore, the offspring of aluminum-exposed mothers showed a significantly longer latency period in the escape-training phase following a three-day period of exposure to non-avoidable shocks.

The report cited by Aluminum.org also included:

Several epidemiological studies have reported a small increased relative risk of AD associated with high aluminum concentrations in drinking water… All these studies have methodological weaknesses, but a true association between high aluminum concentrations in drinking water and dementia (including AD) cannot be ruled out, especially for the most elderly (e.g., over 75)…

According to a review by Doll… the evidence from several epidemiological, clinical and experimental studies suggests that aluminum is neurotoxic in humans but does not suggest that it causes AD. However, Doll… stressed that the possibility that aluminum does cause AD must be kept open until the uncertainty about the neuropathological evidence is resolved.

Aluminum in water can easily be avoided by consuming silica-rich mineral water, which is purported to help reduce total body burden of aluminum [14]

On Day 1 of life, infants receive 17 times more aluminum than would be allowed if doses were adjusted per body weight.

“Myth” #6: Aluminum contained in certain vaccines make them unsafe.

Aluminum.org Claim: “Aluminum salts have been used to improve the immune system’s response to vaccines for more than 70 years. Most of the small amount of aluminum used in the vaccinations is quickly expelled by the body. About half of the aluminum is gone in 24 hours; three-quarters is eliminated in two weeks and virtually all of it disappears within three years.”

“There are recent reports of a neurologic disease called macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) suspected to be caused by injections of aluminum-containing vaccines. The role of aluminum in the mechanism of this disorder is unclear. The only known undesirable effects that are attributable directly to aluminium salts contained in vaccines are possible local inflammatory reactions, which in some cases are due to the speed of the injection of the vaccine or to insufficient agitation of the vial.”

“In 2008, the World Health Organization’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) stated: “From the most recent evidence, there is no reason to conclude that a health risk exists as a result of administration of aluminium-containing vaccines. Neither is there any good scientific or clinical basis for recommending any change in vaccination practice.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has concluded that the use of aluminum in vaccines is safe.”

JLW Analysis: Here we see the same abuse of logic that was used to argue that ethyl mercury from vaccines cleared quickly: the “gone” that Aluminum.org is referencing here are serum levels; there are precious few studies that examine whole-body elimination rates but Flarend et al. [15] found only 4.6% of aluminum left the body of rabbits after 28 days.

Calculations of the “safe” levels of aluminum by Mitkus et al. (the US FDA) [16] were based on myriad flawed assumptions, most importantly the use of dietary aluminum vs. injected vaccine forms of aluminum, on adult mice (instead of infant mice) to assess the safety of aluminum for use as injected forms in infant humans. But even then, we now know that their actual calculations were flawed exercises in a shell game: divide doses into three body compartments, use serum clearance rather than whole body clearance, and divide exposure by 365 days… and then the numbers look safe. We don’t need the numbers to just look safe. We need to know the safe levels of doses of injectable forms of aluminum using dose escalation studies. This was the conclusion of an extensive and careful IPAK analysis [17] which found these and other flaws and concluded that:

“On Day 1 of life, infants receive 17 times more aluminum than would be allowed if doses were adjusted per body weight.”

Regarding aluminum from vaccines and diet, Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia offers health care consumers a video on the webpage featuring Dr. Paul Offit, a CHOP employee claiming (quite incorrectly for infants up to six months of age) that we get far more aluminum from food and water, and anything made of water, than we would ever get from vaccines.

Again, IPAK’s analysis shows, considering body weight, that the information published on the CHOP website is incorrect, and, like Aluminum.org, is misleading consumers into a false sense of safety. This finding is consistent with that of Dorea and Marques [18].

IPAK Calculated Accumulations of Aluminum in Humans by Source. See report [19] for details and additional results. (mcg/kg = micrograms per kilogram cumulative body burden.)

Parents are being tricked by the CHOP website into bringing their infants to be exposed – repeatedly – to acute toxic doses of injected aluminum to accept a medical procedure and pharmaceutical product that is only assumed to be safe – not shown to be safe by science.

Studies now exist that show that aluminum is found in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease – and studies exist that show that safe removal of aluminum via chelation is effective in reducing the symptoms of these and other conditions (19). The consumption of silica-rich mineral waters was found to increase urinary excretion of aluminum from patients with Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (SPMS) (20).  Reversal of a disease by removing a factor proves that factor is a key cause.

Therefore, I believe that both CHOP and Aluminum.org are committing fraudulent false advertising, and one or more class action suits against both should be taken up as soon as possible. The Aluminum.org webpage and the CHOP video spreading false and misleading information on aluminum safety must come down.

Citations

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC554575/
  2. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=29&po=9
  3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28159219
  4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784951/
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784951/
  7. http://vaccinepapers.org/aluminum-inflammation-interleukin-6/
  8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5514401/
  9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14639125
  10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5552203/
  11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2755419
  12. http://vaccinepapers.org/the-foundation-for-al-adjuvant-safety-is-false/
  13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19538017
  14. https://www.hippocraticpost.com/nursing/why-everyone-should-drink-silicon-rich-mineral-water/
  15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9302736
  16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17300950
  18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20010978
  19. http://ipaknowledge.org/resources/IPAK_Aluminum_Flyer.pdf
  20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29128442
  21. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/758323/

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Awareness

The Shocking Lack of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple reasons exist explaining why it makes more sense not to receive the flu vaccine. It makes more sense to focus on a strong and healthy immune system to combat the flu, yet the vaccine is heavily marketed every single year.

  • Reflect On:

    With so many concerns being raised every single year regarding the flu shot, why does the corporation still blast out mass marketing, propaganda false information and fear?

This article was written by Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo.com. His work is reproduced and distributed here with the permission. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.”

As it presently stands, it is not sound medical science, but primarily economic and political motivations which generate the immense pressure behind mass participation in the annual ritual of flu vaccination.

It is a heavily guarded secret within the medical establishment (especially within the corridors of the CDC) that the Cochrane Database Review (CDR), considered by many within the evidence-based medical model to be the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic value of common medical interventions, does not lend unequivocal scientific support to the belief and/or outright propaganda that flu vaccines are ‘safe and effective.’ao-opts a natural process, generating a broad range of adverse unintended consequences, many of which have been documented here. Vaccine proponents would have us believe that natural immunity is inferior to synthetic immunity, and should be replaced by the latter (see our article on the vaccine agenda: Transhumanism/Dehumanism).  In some cases they even suggest breastfeeding should be delayed during immunizations because it “interferes” with the vaccine efficacy.

This warped perspective follows from the disingenuous standard vaccine researchers use to “prove” the “efficacy” of their vaccines. The chemical kitchen sink is thrown at the immune system in order to conserve the expensive-to-produce antigen and to generate a more intense immune response – a process, not unlike what happens when you kick a beehive. These chemicals include detergents, anti-freeze, heavy metals, xenotrophic retroviruses, DNA from aborted human fetuses (diploid cells) and other species, etc. Amazingly, vaccine researchers and manufacturers do not have to prove the antibodies actually have affinity with the antigens they are marketed to protect us against, i.e. they do not have to prove real world “effectiveness,” only a surrogate marker of “efficacy.”  Yet, recent research indicates in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses, running diametrically opposed to the orthodox tenets of classical vaccinology.

Another point that can not be understated is that the trivalent (3-strain) influenza vaccines are incapable of protecting us against the wide range of pathogens which produce influenza-like illness:

“Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only Influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses.” (Source: Cochrane Summaries).

advertisement - learn more

It is therefore exceedingly clear that it is a mathematical impossibility for influenza vaccines to be effective at preventing wild-circulating strains of influenza. Support of the immune system, then, becomes the most logical and reasonable solution.

Immune Status Determines Susceptibility To Infection

The fact is that our immune status determines susceptibility. If the immune system is continually challenged with environmental toxicants, nutritional deficiencies and/or incompatibilities, chronic stress, influenza is far more likely to take hold. If your immune system is strong, many infectious challenges occur, are met with an appropriate response, and often go unnoticed. In other words, it is not a lack of a vaccination that causes infection, rather, the inability of the immune system to function effectively. [Note: In some cases, we may become infected and the ultimate outcome is that we enjoy even greater immunity.]

Moreover, there is an ever-growing appreciation within the scientific community that influenza cannot be defined as a completely exterior vector of morbidity and mortality, as portrayed within the mainstream, but is actually comprised of many proteins and lipids derived from the host it occupies, and may even be more accurately described as a hijacked cellular microvesicle (exosome), i.e. it’s as much us as other.

Learn more by reading our recent articles on the topic, “Why The Only Thing Influenza May Kill Is Germ Theory,” and “Profound Implications of the Virome for Human Health and Autoimmunity,”and by watching the incredibly eye-opening NIH lecture by Dr. Herbert Virgin below on the virome and the potentially indispensable role that viruses play in establishing the baseline genotype-phenotype relationship within the human immune system:

Additionally, while there are a broad spectrum of natural substances which have been studied for their anti-influenza properties, vitamin D deserves special consideration due to the fact that it is indispensable to produce antiviral peptides (e.g. cathelicidin) within the immune system, and can be supported for pennies a day.

For instance, a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2010, revealed that children receiving 1200 IUs of vitamin D a day were at 59% reduced risk for contracting seasonal Influenza A infection. Moreover as a secondary outcome, only 2 children in the treatment group versus 12 for the control group, experienced an asthma attack. For more information on Vitamin D and immunity, visit the amazing research resource on the topic: VitaminDWiki.com.

Other preventive strategies that are evidence-based, and are available without a prescription include:

1) Echinacea Tea: J Altern Complement Med. 2000 Aug;6(4):327-34

2) Elderberry:  J Altern Complement Med. 1995 Winter;1(4):361-9.

3) American Ginseng:  J Altern Complement Med.  2006 Mar;12(2):153-7.

4) Green Tea: J Nutr. 2011 Oct ;141(10):1862-70. Epub   2011 Aug 10.

5) Probiotics: Pediatrics. 2009 Aug;124(2):e172-9.

6) Vitamin D: PLoS One. 2010;5(6):e11088. Epub 2010 Jun 14.

Learn more by visiting our Anti-Influenza Research Portal.

Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Awareness

Author Of “How To End The Autism Epidemic” Reveals A Deep Truth About Autism

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Author, JB Handley has published a book regarding the link between vaccines and autism. It's full of information that's never acknowledged, presented or even known about by most Doctors.

  • Reflect On:

    With so many examples, lawsuits, and scientific evidence, not to mention hundreds of scientists and doctors speaking out, why is there never a platform generated for an open discussion between experts in the field? Why is one side always ridiculed?

Discussing vaccines and autism isn’t an explosive topic, it’s thermonuclear. Both sides of the argument feel, with great passion, that the health and welfare of children is at stake. Much of that passion is the product of several lies told repeatedly. These lies form a foundation for self-interested parties to deny, obscure, and misdirect the truth about what’s happening to millions of children. They pit well-meaning parents against well-meaning parents. Remove the lies and you’re left with a deeply disturbing explanation for why so many children seemingly have autism out of the blue.  JB Handley – Author of How To End The Autism Epidemic 

How To End the Autism Epidemic – with many people saying is the best book on the link between vaccines and autism – is already an Amazon best seller (it hit the list even before it was released) and has recently been sent to all of the senators in Washington.

Author, JB Handley, whose own son Jamieson, showed warning signs that very night after receiving his 6 vaccines given at his ‘well baby’ appointment at two months of age.  Handley shares that something was clearly very wrong after that visit to the trusted family paediatrician, and his once perfectly healthy baby quickly morphed into a very sickly child.

Jamieson quickly regressed into autism and was often in constant pain with severe gut issues, his future now ruined.  This tragedy, that has also become millions of other parent’s far too eerily similar nightmare, propelled Handley on a journey that has become his life’s mission and purpose. Nothing fuels a parents fire to do something, more than that of their own child’s suffering.  It also is the reason why parents of other injured children won’t go away, until something is done about this crippling crisis.

JB, who studied at the prestigious Stanford University, has a very sharp grasp and innate ability to interpret and convey science, which is truly impressive. The research gone into this book is meticulous.

The book is written in a way that is concise and incredibly compelling, but most importantly, it is easy to understand.  This is a very important factor when discussing vaccine topics, simply because much of the ‘vaccine science’  in the last few decades has been manipulated, and you usually need a very sharp mind to see how this has happened.

advertisement - learn more

The way studies are written actually go over most people’s heads, and this is why most don’t look at the studies themselves in detail, for they simply do not understand what things mean, or how to question the data presented, let alone to see how the statistics were manipulated.

The book enables the reader to clearly see inside popular studies which are repeatedly shared in the public to shut down further discussion on issues surrounding vaccine safety and efficacy.

Whilst JB writes only briefly on his own families experience with autism, the book relies mostly on information from science, emails from FOIA requests, court transcripts, and expert testimonials and shares some truly shocking things.  I won’t go into all of them here of course, but there is one testimony from a court case with a leading ‘vaccine expert’ Dr. Stanley Plotkin, that you should be aware of – so that it encourages you to question the ethics of the entire industry – and to purchase the book to find out what other bombshells it contains.

Whilst denying it at first, when questioned by Lawyer Mr. Siri, Dr. Plotkin admitted that he had conducted experimental vaccine tests on mentally disabled subjects (both adults and children), as well as babies born to mothers in jail.  Testing on the most vulnerable of people means that you can conduct studies where the results can easily be manipulated (for example, you won’t have to say in the study that vaccines cause mental illness if a test subject already is mentally ill).

This is highly disturbing to say the very least, but these sorts of ethics are not at all rare in the vaccine industry.

The book also exposes financial interests that many of the well-known vaccine proponents such as Dr. Paul Offit, Dr. Peter Hotez, Dr. Eric Fombonne and Dr. Paul Shattuck have.  Combined it’s many tens of millions.  It’s easy to see why they are used publicly (and so often)  to provide ‘expert commentary’ that vaccines are safe and effective.

For decades, the concern regarding vaccine ingredients was mainly around the neuro-toxic thimerosal, in recent years, there has been a switch to focus on aluminum, an adjuvant found in many of today’s vaccines at alarmingly high amounts. JB has written extensively about this in articles and information is also found in his book.

One expert who has been studying aluminum for decades is that of Professor Chris Exley who had this to say about JB’s book

I have been thinking about the toxicity of aluminum for thirty-five years. It is my life’s work. Before we completed our recent research on aluminum in brain tissue in autism, I could not see a direct link between human exposure to aluminum and autism. I certainly saw no immediate role for aluminum adjuvants in vaccines in autism. The missing link was a mechanism whereby the brain would be subjected to an acute exposure to aluminum, for example, as occurs in aluminum-induced dialysis encephalopathy. Pro-inflammatory cells, some originating from blood and lymph, heavily loaded with a cargo of aluminum in brain tissue in autism provided that missing link. We all tolerate the toxicity of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. Unfortunately, some of us are predisposed to suffer, as opposed to tolerate, the toxicity of aluminum adjuvants, and this may cause autism.

Autism is a disease, and it is not inevitable. J.B. Handley’s elegant synthesis of what we know and what we need to know argues that autism could and should be preventable. I agree with him.―Professor Christopher Exley, PhD, fellow, Royal Society of Biology; professor of bioinorganic chemistry, Keele University

Like it or not, the subject of whether or not ‘vaccines cause autism’ is one that won’t go away, and if anything, becomes talked about more each day, simply because so many parents are sharing that they too, saw something happen to their own children that they can only put down to recent vaccines.

The Implications of Truth

Despite what we are told by the mainstream media and medical industry when it comes to vaccines causing autism, the science here isn’t anywhere near settled.  Some of you might perhaps realize this ‘parroted’ term is perhaps repeated on purpose, it’s used to ‘shut down’ further discussions.  And this should make you question why?  Why are we not able to ask important questions, regarding safety, ingredients and studies?  What other drugs, that you know of, are we not allowed to question?  Could it be down to money?

Imagine if it did come out that vaccines triggered autism in children.  Wouldn’t there be a tidal wave of court cases with hundreds of thousands of claimants wanting compensation?  I wonder how much money this would amount to? The US Government has already paid out close to US 4 Billion (with taxpayers money) and that is for vaccine injury, not for Autism claims.

It is already estimated that for the cost for caring for people with autism will surpass $1 trillion in 2025, and this figure is nothing to do with compensation.  It is a frightening future that we have and one that is headed our way very soon.

The Science is Not Settled…

Science is never settled because it is a field that should always be encouraging further research and critical questioning.  Science has become so corrupted over the last few decades that it is actually an area that should now perhaps raise suspicion, especially where big profits are involved, and especially if the companies who produce the products aren’t held responsible financially if something goes wrong.

Vaccines, unlike drugs, are protected by a 1986 law that gives protection to all vaccine manufacturers. They cannot be sued.  This is disturbing to most people when they discover this, and with very good reason.  Without liability, why would a company bother to change how something is made, to improve it, if no one is going to come knocking on your door demanding change and making you pay anyone that sues you for damage? It’s called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

It is particularly intriguing to see that vaccine research is an area that vaccine manufacturers and those that speak for them, staunchly seem to not want this to be looked into further – especially around the issue of vaccine safety, and it’s connection to autism.

Vaccines have not been tested adequately in relation to them increasing the rates of autism, you might be shocked to know that only one, the MMR  (and also only one ingredient, Thimerosal) has been studied by the CDC – with questionable results at that.  They never mention these other studies on Thimerosal toxicity or acknowledge the comments made by their longtime scientist Dr. William Thomspon, who blew the whistle on the MMR vaccine.

Thompson bravely told the world that it was “the lowest point” in his career that he “went along with that paper.” He said that the authors “didn’t report significant findings” and that he is “completely ashamed” of what he did, that he was “complicit and went along with this, and that he regrets that he has “been part of the problem.” (source)(source)(source)

Vaccines contain so many different ingredients and to have just studied one, seems beyond incredulous. With over 20 different types of vaccines (some which have multiple diseases in them) this is terrible ‘evidence’ that vaccines don’t cause autism.  The CDC (which, unbeknownst to the average person, actually owns 20 vaccine patents) cannot state that is true, because they have simply, not studied them all.

So the science here is most certainly not at all ‘settled.’

What does the US vaccine court say about vaccines causing autism?

Inside JB’s book is a chapter titled ‘The clear legal basis that vaccine’s cause autism’ is dedicated to how the vaccine court operates, and where it was admitted that a child’s injury, and subsequent diagnosis of autism, was because of a vaccine.  One case, which was leaked to the public, regarding Hannah Polling, whose family was given $20 million in compensation, under the condition they never speak out about the finding.  For those that want to deny there is a connection between vaccines and autism, this is a chapter they will have real trouble refuting.

Autism is predicted to affect a whopping 1 in 2 children by the year 2025. Yet nothing seems to be being done by the medical industry about the ’cause’, and certainly nothing effective for its treatment.  Many families are suffering in silence and are becoming impoverished looking after their sick children.

For those in countries like Australia and the UK, where people rely on the socialized ‘free’ health care system, many children are not being given the testing and the treatments that they need. Whilst genes are typically blamed for autism, yet there is no definitive gene for autism.  The money being put into autism research is just not going into the right areas, that would make a huge positive difference.  If it was, the autism rates would be going down.

I feel this is important to note, that the book is not about making the author money to line his pockets. 100% of the profits from How To End The Autism Epidemic are all being donated to several organizations, to help families dealing with autism.

We could do something about autism, and we could do it quickly if our Governments paid attention. The answers are found in this book.

If you are concerned about this issue, want solid science and to want to know the truth about how the vaccine industry operates, this book is for you.

To purchase the book in either paper back of kindle, please click here Remember, the proceeds go to helping other families dealing with autism.

Below is an interview with the author JB Handley

.

Vaccine Court has paid 3.7 billion in damages to families

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

We Need Your Support...

 

With censorship, things have become tough. If just 5% of people seeing this today supported CE, we'd be able to fund a TRUE investigative team INSTANTLY. Your support truly matters and goes a long way! 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.